Craig, I believe SPOON is a very important departure. It permits the fundamentally new to live side by side with the old. It deserves to succeed.
The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary, the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
I am afraid you expect too much from the community. Like everyone else, I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon the success of another./ (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project hasn't got as far as I expected.
Dear Craig. I understand your funding has dried out so that funding is your prime concern. But I sincerely hope you can continue your work on SPOON. You may have to do it alone until you have a reasonably stable core so that other people can start populating it with their own pet revolutions. I think it was Storm-P who said: "When you want to change the world, start in its center and begin with yourself".
All the best --Trygve
On 12.07.2007 04:11, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi Avi and everyone--
There were two principles I was following. The first was that, occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just [to] the people espousing them or the funding they represented.
The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
Aha. My personal observation has been that this principle does not hold. One piece of evidence I have is the various version control systems I have worked on for Squeak. The current version of Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working and useful artifact without any prior discussion.
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years: discussions about the future go precisely nowhere. Ditto experimental branches for people to play with. But make a deep change that still lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
Okay, but if the second principle doesn't hold, then I don't see
how the first one can have any actual significance in this community. To use Koestler's "bisociation" metaphor[1] yet again, it seems that where I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively willing to take.
So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who can
take some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical", despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the attempts anyway).
In the absence of meaningful planning by the Squeak community on
whether, when, and how to use Spoon, those working on it[2] can only leave those decisions to others. Oh, and I suppose those with funding can feel free to speak up at any time. :)
In short (too late! ;), I won't press this further, you all know
where to find Spoon info if you want it[3]. I'll keep helping in other ways. Thanks for reading.
-C
[1] ...the "blue/pink planes" stuff, e.g. as mentioned by Kay from 17:25 onward in http://tinyurl.com/ok5df (video.google.com).
[2] ...it's not just me, although I am coordinating it.
-- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]